Det kommer en film nu, Death of a Nation, jag tror vi alla bör se den. Det sägs att demokraterna kommer krossas av den.
Filmen har redan haft premiär men det enda som verkar ha krossats var nog filmmakaren förhoppningar..
According to The Hollywood Reporter's Pamela McClintock, critics "lambasted" the documentary, and Haaretz's Adrian Hennigan said they were "unmoved by D'Souza's claims for authenticity". Hennigan said, "Some critics questioned whether they should be giving any space to the filmmaker's right-wing guff in praise of Trump and off-the-screen rants against liberals." On the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 0% based on 10 reviews, with an average rating of 1.5/10. On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 1 out of 100, based on 7 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".
Peter Sobczynski of RogerEbert.com gave the film a thumbs down, calling it "pure garbage from first frame to last" and added that the documentary "could well be of service to future historians struggling to make sense of our current madness." Owen Gleiberman, reviewing for Variety, said "Dinesh D'Souza goes over the top — of hate, and of truth — in his latest documentary, a radical-right screed that equates liberalism with Nazism." Gleiberman compared the film to D'Souza's previous documentaries, "Death of a Nation breaks through to a whole new slime-o-sphere of over-the-top ideological libel"
Det är demokraterna som angriper konstitutionen genom att försöka få bort 2nd amendment. Demokraterna var slavägarna, KKK. När ska ni fatta det? Demokraterna var motståndare till kvinnors rösträtt, svartas rösträtt, slavars medborgarskap m.m.
Alla som har någorlunda koll på USAs historia känner till att partierna har bytt plattform med varandra. Demokraterna var initialt mer konservativa (och därmed positivare till KKK, slaveri etc) och republikanerna var mer progressiva.
Oj, nu verkar det hända grejer. Anonyma krigar mot anonyma! Hackergruppen Anonymous ger sig på Q!
The hacking collective Anonymous is pledging to expose the people behind the "QAnon" conspiracy theory.
The anarchist hacking group slammed the QAnon conspiracy as potentially dangerous and driven by a "brainless political agenda" in a video posted Sunday to what is widely considered the most reliable Anonymous Twitter account.
"We will not sit idly by while you take advantage of the misinformed and poorly educated," the group said in the video, which was posted with the hashtags #OpQ and #OpQAnon.
Han har dock sagt att hans son ljög för FBI, sonen sa att mötet var för att tala om adoption och nu kommer de fram och erkänner att det var för att samla information mot Clinton genom hjälp av ryska kontakter vilket är direkt olagligt.
Det är direkt olagligt på den federal nivå att söka hjälp av andra nationer det är samma sak att ta emot donationer från icke amerikaner i andra länder.
Så exempelvis så får inte en svensk politiker aktivt hjälpa en amerikansk politiker att försöka och vinna en demokratiskt utvald politisk position inom USA. Samma sak gäller om en icke amerikansk medborgare utan ett greencard skulle donera pengar till en amerikansk kandidat, det är även det olagligt och klassat som ett valbrott.
[Tillagt]
Här har du för övrigt vad lagen säger.
Citat:
§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals ( 52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
• Steele was paid over $160,000 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
Hillary for America (Clinton campaign) for his dossier.
Hmm, vad ser vi här? Jo, Democratic National Committee (DNC) och Hillary Clinton betalade Christopher Steele (MI6 agent) $160 000, för en dossier om Donald Trump. Intressant.
Vem är ansvarig för dokumentet? Ja, det är 'U.S House of Representatives, permanent select committee on intelligence'. Alltså, Representanthusets kommitte för underrättelsefrågor.
Hmm, vad ser vi här? Jo, Democratic National Committee (DNC) och Hillary Clinton betalade Christopher Steele (MI6 agent) $160 000, för en dossier om Donald Trump. Intressant.
Vem är ansvarig för dokumentet? Ja, det är 'U.S House of Representatives, permanent select committee on intelligence'. Alltså, Representanthusets kommitte för underrättelsefrågor.
Steele har inte varit en MI6 agent sedan 2009 sedan måste man ställa sig frågan, inom vilka gränser beställdes den?
Var det på samma grunder som Trump Jr gjorde när han aktivt sökte kontakt med en rysk agent och delvis Trump Sr gjorde när han i Tv stod och bad Ryssland om att hacka Clintons email?
Steele har inte varit en MI6 agent sedan 2009 sedan måste man ställa sig frågan, inom vilka gränser beställdes den?
Var det på samma grunder som Trump Jr gjorde när han aktivt sökte kontakt med en rysk agent och delvis Trump Sr gjorde när han i Tv stod och bad Ryssland om att hacka Clintons email?
Faktum kvarstår, Christopher Steele fick $160 000, för att skriva en dossier om Donald Trump på initiativ av DNC och Hillary for America (Clinton campaign).
Wikipedia om Trump-Russia dossier:
The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier,[1] is a private intelligence report comprising 17 memos that were written from June to December 2016[2] by Christopher Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6). The resulting dossier contains allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Government of Russia during the 2016 election cycle, with campaign members and Russian operatives allegedly colluding to interfere in the election to benefit Trump.[3] It also alleged that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy, including sharing negative information about Clinton with the Trump campaign.[4] The dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10, 2017.[5] Several mainstream media outlets criticized BuzzFeed's decision to release it without first verifying its allegations.[6][7]
Fusion GPS, a private investigative firm, provided political opposition research against Trump in two distinct phases, with completely separate funders. Fusion GPS was first contracted by a conservative political website, The Washington Free Beacon, and Steele was not involved in that research. When Trump became the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped their backing. Separately, in April 2016, attorney Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele to research and compile the dossier. Steele was hired without knowing, or ever having direct contact with, his ultimate clients,[8] and his only instructions were to seek answers to this basic question: "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?"[9] Senior Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted with Steele, and Steele was not told the Clinton campaign was the ultimate recipient of his research.[10][8] Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research, and was reportedly paid directly by Glenn R. Simpson, a co-founder of Fusion GPS.[11] The completed dossier was then handed to British and American intelligence services.[12] Weeks before the 2016 election, on the basis of Steele's reputation working on Russia-related matters for nearly 20 years, the FBI reached an agreement to pay Steele to continue his work, but the agreement was later terminated as information about the dossier became public.[13]
The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, due to its unverified assertions, while Trump himself denounced the report as "fake news". However, the intelligence community does take the allegations seriously and investigates them.[14][15][16][17] For example, as of May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper believed that "more and more" of the dossier has been validated over time.[18]
Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others remain unverified[19] or may require access to classified information for verification.[20] In February 2017, some details related to conversations "solely between foreign nationals" were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the dossier.[21]
__________________
Senast redigerad av Q-follower 2018-08-07 kl. 11:10.
Hmm, vad ser vi här? Jo, Democratic National Committee (DNC) och Hillary Clinton betalade Christopher Steele (MI6 agent) $160 000, för en dossier om Donald Trump. Intressant.
Vem är ansvarig för dokumentet? Ja, det är 'U.S House of Representatives, permanent select committee on intelligence'. Alltså, Representanthusets kommitte för underrättelsefrågor.
Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law — and the Steele dossier likely didn’t
One argument is that, since Steele is not a U.S. citizen, he would be barred from involvement in the campaign as surely as the Russians should have been. Lawrence Noble, former chief counsel for the FEC, explained the difference in the situations over email.
“Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” Noble wrote. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.” Clinton’s campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it’s a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it’s not a contribution, the FEC allows it.
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to see what links might exist between Trump and Russian actors. Those connections, built during his service for the British government, were why he was valuable to Fusion GPS. It’s akin to a campaign looking to investigate an opponent’s history of real estate deals in Mexico: Hiring a Mexican firm that’s familiar with the available records would be perfectly legal, if the firm were paid with legally raised campaign contributions.
Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law — and the Steele dossier likely didn’t
Jag underströk det väsentliga. Fake news media gillar ord som may, likely och anonymous source. Det betyder påhittat eller lögn.
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av PlantaGenista
“Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,”
Varken Hillary Clintons kampanj eller DNC är anklagade; Det är FBI, CIA och DOJ som begått brott genom att använda ett overifierat dokument som bevis i en domstol utan att meddela domstolen att så är fallet. Det är olagligt.
Jag har tidigare skrivit om skillnaden mellan bevisprövning i exempelvis Sverige som har fri bevisprövning och USA som inte har det. Lägg därtill det faktum att en FISC domstol ställer högre krav på ansökningarna än en vanlig domstol. Jag har tidigare skrivit om FISA och FISC i tråden, värt en läsnig.
Filmen har redan haft premiär men det enda som verkar ha krossats var nog filmmakaren förhoppningar..
According to The Hollywood Reporter's Pamela McClintock, critics "lambasted" the documentary, and Haaretz's Adrian Hennigan said they were "unmoved by D'Souza's claims for authenticity". Hennigan said, "Some critics questioned whether they should be giving any space to the filmmaker's right-wing guff in praise of Trump and off-the-screen rants against liberals." On the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 0% based on 10 reviews, with an average rating of 1.5/10. On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 1 out of 100, based on 7 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".
Peter Sobczynski of RogerEbert.com gave the film a thumbs down, calling it "pure garbage from first frame to last" and added that the documentary "could well be of service to future historians struggling to make sense of our current madness." Owen Gleiberman, reviewing for Variety, said "Dinesh D'Souza goes over the top — of hate, and of truth — in his latest documentary, a radical-right screed that equates liberalism with Nazism." Gleiberman compared the film to D'Souza's previous documentaries, "Death of a Nation breaks through to a whole new slime-o-sphere of over-the-top ideological libel"
Lägg märke till skillnaden i språket. I dina länkar kan man knappt urskilja kritiken bland allt spottand och fräsande i personangreppen. Typisk vänsterretorik, samma sak ser vi i klimatdiskussionen.
I min länk är det sansat språk, saklighet.
Ingen kan neka till att filmen har ett mått av propaganda för republikanerna, men kritiken i dina länkar är inget annat än fräsande vänsterhat.
Filmen och Q kommer att hjälpa Trump att pulvrisera demokraterna i mid-terms. Sedan kommer övriga världen gradvis att börja tänka själva. Vilket är anledningen till att vi även i Sverige har sett detta massiva Trump-hat.
Fattar du inte att det är helt irrelevant om Q är vad han utger sig för att vara? Effekten uppnås ändå.
Jag underströk det väsentliga. Fake news media gillar ord som may, likely och anonymous source. Det betyder påhittat eller lögn.
Varken Hillary Clintons kampanj eller DNC är anklagade; Det är FBI, CIA och DOJ som begått brott genom att använda ett overifierat dokument som bevis i en domstol utan att meddela domstolen att så är fallet. Det är olagligt.
Jag har tidigare skrivit om skillnaden mellan bevisprövning i exempelvis Sverige som har fri bevisprövning och USA som inte har det. Lägg därtill det faktum att en FISC domstol ställer högre krav på ansökningarna än en vanlig domstol. Jag har tidigare skrivit om FISA och FISC i tråden, värt en läsnig.
Läs: Källa: Fake News Media
Vilket toppenargument i en tråd som helt handlar om just en anonym källa - som du dessutom verkar försvara och tro på...